This case study needs to be read in conjunction with other case studies which feature personalities and ideas coming from the Evangelical Diocese of Sydney. These case studies include those of Broughton Knox (4.34), Donald Robinson (4.43) Peter Jensen (4.33), Robert Doyle (4.27) and Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies of the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries (4.54).

The Sydney Morning Herald’s Religious Affairs writer, Kelly Burke, argues that Evangelical is “the dominant force in the Sydney diocese since the colony’s establishment in the late 18th century” where “it models itself on the teachings of austere Protestant reformer John Calvin (1509-1564)” (Burke, 2003: 21). The appointment of Peter Jensen as Archbishop of Sydney in 2001 is seen as “the culmination of a 40-year crusade to return the diocese to its rightful, puritanical Calvinist roots” (Burke, 2003: 18). The key to understanding this Evangelical nature is the way in which the Bible is considered in the Diocese of Sydney. Kim Hawtrey, a member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney explains speaks of this, saying:

“For Evangelicals, everything must be tested against the Bible, for it is from the Word of God that evangelical Christians … take their cue. As a corollary, it follows that wherever Anglican forms and practices do not conform with biblical truth – or are seen as a hindrance rather than a help to gospel ministry – they are negotiable.” (Hawtrey, 2000)

For Hawtrey it is this testing against the Bible that makes the Diocese of Sydney the ‘true conservatives’ of the Anglican Communion, rather than radicals as some would have it.

Kim Hawtrey – Member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney

Caroline Miley on the other hand argues however that Peter Jensen and Sydney Evangelicals are radicals since Jensen is “a most un-Anglican archbishop” and his views “are not consistent with Anglican beliefs” (Miley, 2003: 15). Miley argues that:

“the Anglican Church since the Reformation has purposely placed its doctrines and practices in the ‘middle way’ between Catholicism and outright Continental Protestantism. Its statements of doctrine and its liturgies contain, and have always deliberately contained, elements of both. The practice of the church has always been diverse, within the approved formulas. This means that while there has always been an evangelical strand, there has also always been an Anglo-Catholic strand, while the vast majority of Anglicans are somewhere in between. This diversity has been and is still one of the greatest strengths of Anglicanism.” (Miley, 2003: 15).

Clearly for Miley, Jensen and his followers are outside this so called Anglican ‘middle way’ and it is for this reason that she sees him as a most un-Anglican archbishop.

Caroline Miley – Lecturer at the Victorian College of the Arts, Melbourne and author of the book The Suicidal Church. Can the Anglican Church be Saved?

There is some validity to what Miley says, however it is the argument of this project that it is far too simplistic to distinguish Anglican theological positions on the basis of party spirit alone. Further it is simplistic to argue that there is a genuine ‘middle way’ unless that middle way is in a recognition that there are different understandings within the Anglican tradition, as Miley seems to suggest. This project argues that there are much deeper philosophical differences between the various Anglican theological positions (Evangelical, Catholic and Liberal) than historical sources alone indicate. This is particularly so in relation to the way in which the Eucharist has been understood in Anglicanism. It is contended in this project that different understandings of the Eucharist cannot merely be understood as historical phenomena and that exploration of theological and philosophical dimensions are also needed in order to understand the Anglican eucharistic tradition more fully. Instead of a ‘middle way’ it may be more appropriate to describe Anglicanism and eucharistic theology in terms of its multiformity. This project has attempted to do this using the distinctions between realism and nominalism to the moderate and immoderate degrees.

Some views within the Diocese of Sydney are suspicious of Anglican eucharistic practice and theology as practised outside that diocese. Karin Sowada (a representative of the Diocese of Sydney at the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia, held in Brisbane in July, 2001) commented on the worship she experienced as apart of the synod.

Karin Sowada – Representative of the Diocese of Sydney at General Synod, 2001

Sowada stated that:

“I was stunned by some aspects of the national church. For example, the extent to which the eucharist, administered by priests, has been elevated to an almost mystic, transcendental experience in some quarters was a shock. No wonder the concept of lay administration is so threatening to many outside Sydney.” (Sowada, 2001: 6).

Clearly for Karin Sowada any idea of sacramental mystery and transcendence and indeed sacramental worship itself is seen to be apart from what she considers the genuine experience of Anglican worship. Although she gives no explanation of what she considers the proper experience of the Eucharist to be, it seems that for her that experience does not depend upon priestly function or traditional eucharistic piety and practice.

A writer to the journal of the Diocese of Sydney, Southern Cross, complained that the decision of the then Archbishop of Sydney, The Most Rev’d Harry Goodhew, to veto the decision of the 1999 Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, to permit lay presidency of the Eucharist, was a “missed opportunity to affirm the truth of the atonement” and spoke about “the wolves howling at our diocesan border” (presumably Anglicans from other Australian dioceses). The writer went on to say that these wolves in disagreeing with the decision of the Sydney Synod were “defending their right to make ‘sacrifices’ on the ‘altar’” and “as for me and mine, we will rely on the one true sacrifice offered once and for all by our Great High Priest” (Parsons, 1999-2000: 8). Like Sowada, this letter writer, argues that there are aspects of eucharistic worship which are in some way normative for all Anglicans and that at the same time there are aspects which are clearly excluded. Any suggestion of ‘sacrifice’ in the Eucharist is excluded, although this letter writer seems only capable of understanding notions of immoderate sacrifice, where a notion of sacrifice, when incorporated into eucharistic worship, detracts from the historic sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The notion of moderate realism, as frequently found in Anglican eucharistic theology, remains unconsidered.

It is the idea of a normative status for genuine Anglicanism that is often affirmed by some Evangelical Anglicans in the Diocese of Sydney. Glenn Davies (the Bishop of North Sydney) argues in his observations on the 2001 General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia that the Diocese of Sydney and its evangelical tradition “is a true treasure from God” which “we must never underestimate” (Davies, 2001c: 2).

In a diary of observations on the 2001 General Synod, published by Anglican Media Sydney, Davies comments that liturgical Anglicanism “is unlikely to sustain the next generation of Anglicans, without a clear focus on the word of God” (Davies, 2001a: 3). This suggests that, in his view, liturgical Anglicanism is a non-essential and that the evangelical tradition of which he speaks values other aspects of the tradition. In his comments on Day Five of the General Synod, Davies reveals much more about what he thinks the nature of the Eucharist should be. Here in a discussion of Anglican-Lutheran relations he comments that:

“Everyone is excited about moving forward as brothers and sisters in Christ. However there was also a recognition that there are differences over our understanding of the Holy Communion. The Lutheran position is that Christ’s presence in Holy Communion is ‘in or under’ the forms of bread and wine while the Anglican position understands Christ’s body is in heaven and that we eat and drink after a ‘heavenly and spiritual manner’” (Davies, 2001b: 2)

For Davies it seems that there can be no real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in the sense that Christ’s body is ‘in or under’ the forms of bread and wine. He adopts what is essentially a cranmerian position, arguing for the presence of Christ’s body in heaven alone in an empirical sense, without any suggestion of a presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the elements in a mystical or spiritual, but nonetheless real sense. It is this empirical separation of the body of Christ in heaven from the bread and wine of the Eucharist that expresses an underlying nominalism in the eucharistic theology of Davies and in many Anglicans within the Diocese of Sydney and explains why liturgical worship seems to be less valued than what is seen to be other more essential aspects, such as the words of Scripture and the preaching of Scripture.

In Davies’ view the signs of the Eucharist (the bread and wine) are clearly separated from the signified (Christ’s body and blood). Christ’s body and blood are in heaven and the bread and wine are on earth in the Eucharist and the two, the signs and the signified, are each self-enclosed entities which share no realist identification, one with the other, outside the enquiring mind. The realist idea of the instantiation of a universal (Christ’s nature) in the particulars of the Eucharist (‘in or under’ bread and wine) is not possible in such a scheme. Any connection between the elements and Christ’s body and blood is in terms of the believing communicant’s enquiring mind, rather than as an instantiation of a universal in a particular in a realist manner.

Glenn Davies, Bishop of North Sydney

The impetus for the type of Evangelical Anglicanism that is found within the Diocese of Sydney is powerfully expressed by Phillip Jensen (brother of Archbishop Peter Jensen) and now Dean of Sydney, but formerly Rector of a mega-parish in the Diocese of Sydney (St Matthias, Centennial Park). Phillip Jensen connects Anglicanism with what is seen as a normative Reformation heritage.

Phillip Jensen – Dean of Sydney

Phillip Jensen, speaking at the Anglican Church League Dinner at the October 2001 Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, when he was Rector of the parish of St Matthias, Centennial Park, set out what he described as “An Evangelical Agenda” (Jensen, Phillip, 2001). The Anglican Church League is an organisation within the Diocese of Sydney which maintains a reformed, protestant and evangelical character within the Anglican Church in the Diocese of Sydney. Its ideals and writings can be accessed on its web site (www.acl.asn.au). In his address Phillip Jensen argued that the character of the Anglican Church is “based on Scripture and is expressed in the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion” and it is by these that the Anglican Church can be described as “reformed, protestant and evangelical” (Jensen, Phillip, 2001: 1). The thrust of Jensen’s argument revolves around the point that there is a genuine Anglican position – that it is reformed, protestant and evangelical – and that other positions within Anglicanism, such as Anglo-Catholicism or liberalism, are not genuine, in the sense that they are not loyal to these essential characteristics since they are reinterpretations from later periods. In fact Jensen rejects any suggestion that there is a legitimate variety of views within Anglicanism. He argues that if “Anglicanism is the acceptance of a seemingly infinite plurality of views” then “this of course is the ultimate triumph of Liberalism” (Jensen, Phillip, 2001: 4). There is only one view and that view is reformed, protestant and evangelical, in harmony with the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles.

Jensen does acknowledge however that some Anglicans have bypassed these essential markers “by a whole range of other incarnated markers” (Jensen, Phillip, 2001: 4). One such group he singles out is the Tractarians. He argues that:

“The Tractarians were particularly effective in incarnating their message. So they reintroduced into the Anglican forms of church life – sacerdotal markers (chasubles, perpetual lights, reservation of the sacraments [sic], crucifixes, genuflections, mass language, the agnes [sic] Dei etc.). These then became the essential boundary markers of a parish or diocese.” (Jensen, Phillip, 2001: 4).

Jensen argues that boundary markers of the type he mentions are capable of “excluding evangelical ministry, gospel ministry, genuinely Anglican reformed protestant ministry” (Jensen, Phillip, 2001: 6). Clearly that which is often associated with a realist philosophy of the Eucharist and a sacramental world view is excluded from what Jensen sees as acceptable within Anglicanism.

Some difficulties are present in Jensen’s argument. He assumes that there is only one genuine Anglican theology and that this derives from the period of the Reformation. He also assumes that this genuine position can be summed up in the three words, reformed, protestant and evangelical and that any other descriptors or boundaries are in error. He also assumes that the Catholic strain of Anglicanism is an invention of a period later than the Reformation. Finally he characterises Anglicanism as a grouping of Church parties, each with their distinctive boundaries and fails to discriminate on any deeper level of analysis.

The case studies of this project suggest that, as far as the Anglican eucharistic tradition is concerned, different positions, distinguished in terms of theology and philosophy have been present since the beginning of the Reformation. This project has distinguished consistent strains of both realism and nominalism in the writings of prominent Anglican theologians from each period of Anglican history. The realist philosophical underpinnings of many of the theologians from the period of the Reformation make it difficult to maintain that a realist theology of the Eucharist was an invention of a later age. Certainly the Tractarians popularised many liturgical and ritual practices (such as those mentioned by Jensen) that were not common in the period of the Reformation, but the essential realist philosophical position in relation to the Eucharist was not invented by the Tractarians. Such a realist theology of the Eucharist appears, from the evidence presented in the case studies of this project, to have been present consistently in the Anglican eucharistic tradition from the time of the Reformation onwards. Phillip Jensen’s analysis of the Anglican Church seems to suffer from an unwillingness to concede that has been more than one theological and philosophical position in Anglicanism and that these different positions cannot simply be described in historical terms alone as these relate to development and practice of various church parties.

Mark Thompson, a lecturer in theology and church history at Moore Theological College in the Diocese of Sydney makes the point that Anglicanism cannot be boiled down one simple position.

Mark Thompson – Lecturer at Moore Theological College, Sydney

He argues in relation to the question of how to interpret Scripture for example that: “If we are to avoid simply a partisan or parochial response to the question we must seek a more secure foundation than our own local tradition. If we are to avoid idiosyncrasy and novel speculation, we cannot simply rehearse our own intellectual commitments” (Thompson, 2001: 1). He argues therefore that there must be some objective standard against which things Anglican can be judged. His proposal for such a theological standard is as follows: “I am convinced we can only locate genuine Anglicanism in its formularies or confessional foundations, namely the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer” (Thompson, 2001: 1). He adds to this list the First and Second Book of Homilies. These documents have been considered in separate case studies of this project. In Thompson’s assessment however, some modern Anglicans have seen fit to disregard these foundational documents. He argues that:

“To the degree that much modern Anglicanism has seen fit to revise or even reject the teaching of the Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Homilies, or at least the plain and literal meaning of these confessional documents most particularly on the issue of the origin, nature and use of Holy Scripture – to the extent the bulk of modern Anglicanism is adrift from its moorings and in danger of catastrophic destruction or disintegration.” (Thompson, 2001: 9).

While Thompson’s argument begins with an appeal to move past party spirit and any attempt to seek one simple position, it continues with an appeal to both party spirit and one position. The foundational documents he refers to have been variously interpreted, by Evangelicals and Catholic alike, and it seems that they are capable of various levels of meanings. It makes little sense then to argue for one interpretation of these document alone. Reference to the case studies of this project for these documents will show the different interpretations presented throughout Anglican history. Thompson however, makes the assumption that there is some form of doctrinal purity in these foundational statements, in the sense that there is one genuine and correct reading of them possible and if this reading is made and adhered to then all Anglicans will hold the same truth. Such a view fails to acknowledge that the documents themselves were subject to interpretation and revision and that more than one meaning can be gathered from these documents. Some, for example, would want to argue that a realist theology of the Eucharist can be held on the basis of the Book of Common Prayer, the Articles and the Homilies, while others will argue that this is not possible and assert only a nominalist interpretation of the Eucharist.

Such realist interpretations however have frequently been rejected by theologians from the Sydney tradition (e.g. Knox, Robinson, Doyle and Barnett). Paul Barnett, a former bishop of North Sydney argues that the Eucharist correctly interpreted from scriptural material (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11: 17-34) makes the case that the Eucharist was only a symbolic meal.

Paul Barnett, former Bishop of North Sydney

Barnett, speaking of the Church in the years immediately after apostolic times, argues that:

“The increasingly Gentile church after apostolic times, however, misunderstood this symbolism and spoke instead in ‘realistic’ language like Ignatius’ reference to the bread and wine as the ‘medicine of immortality and the antidote to death’. Doctrine of re-offered sacrifice by episcopally ordained priests, transubstantiation and ‘real presence’ evolved over time. The Reformers recaptured a truer grasp of Jesus’ intention, though many Protestants – perhaps in reaction to pre-Reformation errors – tend not have the ‘high’ view of the Remembrance Meal we find in Paul.” (Barnett, 1999a: 2).

For Barnett, realist notions of presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist are not part of the original scriptural meaning. Despite this Barnett goes on to say that:

“At the Dinner of the Lord the ‘doing this’, that is the watching, the listening and the consuming by those present call to ‘remembrance’ Jesus himself.” (Barnett, 1999a: 2).

This sounds like anamnesis, but Barnett’s comments must be interpreted in light of his fuller theology of the Eucharist. By ‘remembrance’ he seems to mean ‘calling to mind’ on the part of the faithful communicant, and not any realist sense of Christ’s sacrifice being present by its effects in the context of the Eucharist. For Barnett:

“there is but one way to salvation which is not through our good works but by grace through personal trust in Jesus Christ the Son of God, who bore the penalty of our sins in his death, who was raised bodily on the third day and who will return at the end of the age. These confessions, based on the Bible and arrived at in times of great theological debate, mark a circle within which the orthodox Christian stands” (Barnett, 1999b: 1).

The way to salvation is a matter of personal appropriation, not sacramental ministry, and so realist notions related to the Eucharist, would logically be excluded from Barnett’s theology of the Eucharist. Christ is experienced ‘really’ by grace through personal trust in Christ, and not through the works of individuals or churches, such as are to be found in the Eucharist. Barnett’s tradition and that of the Diocese of Sydney is evangelical and so he affirms that he is “committed to the preaching of the evangel of Christ from the viewpoint of the understanding of the Reformation” (Barnett, 1999c: 1). For Barnett, like many others from the Diocese of Sydney, there is an assumption of a pure Reformation doctrine, which he and they, argue needs to be maintained. Evidence presented in this project suggests that such a dependence on a position of pure doctrine, as this relates to the Eucharist at least, cannot be established since from the earliest years of the Reformation through until the present there has been a multiformity of doctrine in relation to the Eucharist in the Anglican tradition.

Within the Diocese of Sydney there is a widely held opinion which suggests there is a genuine and normative view of what comprises Anglicanism. This is often characterised by a belief that a single, pure Reformation view, encompassing reformed, protestant and evangelical theology, is a legacy of the Reformation which needs to be preserved as a solemn trust. This theology focuses on the centrality of the Bible as the word of God and the importance of foundational Anglican Reformation documents such as the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles. The view is expressed that these documents contain a genuine Anglican theology which cannot be revised or negotiated. Evidence presented in this case study suggests that this view is widely held in the Diocese of Sydney over recent years. Evidence presented elsewhere by this project however, suggests that such a view of a genuine and normative Anglican Reformed theological position is, as regards the Eucharist, not supported. Evidence presented by this project puts the case that from the earliest times of the Reformation there was a variety of views in relation to the Eucharist and these views were founded on both a realist and nominalist philosophical position. Realists linked sign and signified in the Eucharist in a moderate sense, where the signs of bread and wine instantiated the signified body and blood of Christ and where the Eucharist instantiated the sacrifice of Christ. Nominalist thinking separated the signs and the signified and argued that there was no real identification between the bread and wine in the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ, nor that there was any realist link between the sacrifice of the cross and the remembrance of that sacrifice in the Eucharist. Signs and signified in this nominalist view were self-enclosed entities with no identification of the one with the other. This project suggests that both the realist and nominalist philosophical conceptions were evident in Anglicanism from the earliest times of the Reformation and that these have continued to be present throughout the Anglican eucharistic tradition to the present time. The idea, put by some within the Diocese of Sydney and essentially nominalist as regards the Eucharist, of an exclusive Reformation theology functioning as the sole representation of a genuine and normative Anglican theology of the Eucharist, runs counter to the evidence put forward by this project.